Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

It really is no laughing matter. Thousands of lives (including more than a 100 Americans) were lost because of this stuff. More than $100 billion dollars -- our dollars -- expended. American credibility in the world -- as if there was any left -- is shot to pieces -- no one is going to believe U.S. military intelligence briefings any more.

The war was fought on false pretenses. Conservatives -- and I include in these the six of seven Democratic Presidential candidates who supported the "war" (really a euphemism) should be OUTRAGED that American lives should be sacrificed this way.

For you to keep insisting that Conservatives should be outraged is, shall we say, presumptious. You, obviously, are no Conservative and have a poor understanding of what Conservative means. Otherwise, you would know that none of the Democratic Presidential candidates are Conservatives.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Originally posted by shantinik:It really is no laughing matter. Thousands of lives (including more than a 100 Americans) were lost because of this stuff. More than $100 billion dollars -- our dollars -- expended. American credibility in the world -- as if there was any left -- is shot to pieces -- no one is going to believe U.S. military intelligence briefings any more.

The war was fought on false pretenses. Conservatives -- and I include in these the six of seven Democratic Presidential candidates who supported the "war" (really a euphemism) should be OUTRAGED that American lives should be sacrificed this way.[/b]

Shantinik

I agree with almost all that you say. The only place I would disagree is that it is not just conservatives but all Americans (and the entire world since it is all been effected) who should be outraged at the President leading us into war on false pretenses -- and you know as well as I do that the WMD issue was not the only false pretense we were given to rally support.

I don't believe though that it matters to many of the members of this forum. Not because there is anything lacking in them, but because they see the world differently than you and I do. What I have come to realize is that the most prolific "conservative" posters are motivated by partisan values more than any thing else. They make decisions based on an "us vs them" value system, not based on values which encompass more than the "team" they are on.

Thus, if one criticizes the war and points out things such as you have pointed out, one is part of "them." It is assumed one is motivated by the negative -- being anti-Bush, anti-American or just being overall negative and hateful about everything. If one measures the success of the war based on what we were told were the goals and reasons for the war, one is then just being pessimistic and is unable to move beyond something that is supposedly over.

Thus, to them, if George Bush or a Republican does something, it is assumed to be good. (Conversely, if there were more Democratis partisans here, it would be assumed to be bad by those partisans). If the United States wins a war against a weak nation, this is assumed to be good and to be all that is needed to prove the validity of the war. "We" won; "they" lost. End of story.

Then there are a few of us -- and I think you and I are the same in this respect even if we would disagree on many things -- who base views on broader political, as opposed to partisan, values. We see broader principles which should be adhered to than just "us vs them." Therefore, we measure and judge based on these broader principles without reference to whose side we are on.

I think this is why discussion of many issues becomes almost impossible here. If someone sees the world in "us vs them" terms, all that matters is support for or opposition to the home team. Those with this view of things have a difficult time understanding those who see things in broader terms.

The same is the case for those of us who have a broader political ideology. We assume the broader ideology is important (or should be important) to everyone and cannot understand those who base support solely on partisan terms.

No real discussion can thus take place. Neither group understands the motivation of the other group. Hence both groups see the other as failing in some way or another. In reality, no one is failing; both simply see the world through different glasses.

To me, the article you posted is not only geermane, but extremely important in judging what this country has done and is doing. But I also have come to realize through the discussions on here, that to many others this sort of thing does not matter. As long as the US "won" the war, what happened to lead up to it is old news and is no longer relevant.

As long as these two divergent ideologies exist here and there is no understanding by each group of the other -- i.e those with partisan values versus those with political values -- I have to ask whether it is even worth trying to hold the discussion.

_________________________
WMD = W[/b]ords of M[/b]ass D[/b]istortion----------------------Seek those who seek the truth.Avoid those who have found it.

Lazy Pianist:Then there are a few of us -- and I think you and I are the same in this respect even if we would disagree on many things -- who base views on broader political, as opposed to partisan, values. We see broader principles which should be adhered to than just "us vs them." Therefore, we measure and judge based on these broader principles without reference to whose side we are on.

I think this is why discussion of many issues becomes almost impossible here. If someone sees the world in "us vs them" terms, all that matters is support for or opposition to the home team. Those with this view of things have a difficult time understanding those who see things in broader terms.[/b]

What does "broad political principles" mean, and what are these based upon?

If'n ya answer though, keep it simple and dummed down for us regular folks, as you must be a member of the intellectually elite class.

Since, as a conservative, I don't have the mental capacity for complex thought or analysis, all I can say is "Yeah, what he said!"

This is why I rarely participate in political discourse here any more, LP. I really, really enjoy political conversation among participants that respect the intellect and motivation of each other. Dismissive, insulting comments like yours just show the pointlessness of even trying to have an intelligent discussion. I believe in my viewpoints, but I don't close my mind to further ideas. I reserve the right to alter my viewpoints when presented with new information. I don't prejudge all opposing viewpoints as being the product of inferior thought process and narrowmindedness.

You could certainly learn a lot by taking to heart the warning in your own sig block.

Originally posted by Dwain Lee:Since, as a conservative, I don't have the mental capacity for complex thought or analysis, all I can say is "Yeah, what he said!"

This is why I rarely participate in political discourse here any more, LP. I really, really enjoy political conversation among participants that respect the intellect and motivation of each other. Dismissive, insulting comments like yours just show the pointlessness of even trying to have an intelligent discussion. I believe in my viewpoints, but I don't close my mind to further ideas. I reserve the right to alter my viewpoints when presented with new information. I don't prejudge all opposing viewpoints as being the product of inferior thought process and narrowmindedness.

You could certainly learn a lot by taking to heart the warning in your own sig block.[/b]

Dwain

I did not say anything about conservatives that I did not say about liberals, Indeed, I did not differentiate between conservatives and liberals at all.

Surely Dwain you have seen the difference between the "my-country-right-or-wrong" thinking and those who apply broader principles that transcend parochial thinking.

_________________________
WMD = W[/b]ords of M[/b]ass D[/b]istortion----------------------Seek those who seek the truth.Avoid those who have found it.

I've occasionally misread comments or the intent behind them as I quickly read through posts, LP. Let me go back and read your post again...

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazy Pianist:[QBI don't believe though that it matters to many of the members of this forum. Not because there is anything lacking in them, but because they see the world differently than you and I do. What I have come to realize is that the most prolific "conservative" posters are motivated by partisan values more than any thing else. They make decisions based on an "us vs them" value system, not based on values which encompass more than the "team" they are on...

...Then there are a few of us -- and I think you and I are the same in this respect even if we would disagree on many things -- who base views on broader political, as opposed to partisan, values. We see broader principles which should be adhered to than just "us vs them." Therefore, we measure and judge based on these broader principles without reference to whose side we are on.[/QB]

No, I still see the insult, and the statement that people that think like you and shantinik do so out of a loftier mindset, and that the most prolific conservative posters here suffer from a narrow-minded, partisan worldview. I strongly disagree. Just I believe that you, with whom I rarely if ever agree, are still intelligent and well-motivated, I read the writings of those most prolific conservative voices here and find them to be equally intelligent and grounded in a broad-minded philosophy - just one different from yours.

Many people stereotype, and by extension, try to marginalize, conservatives by considering them all to be exactly like the rarest, most extreme, least intelligent, radical element in their midst. I believe that your words have attempted to marginalize these forum members by doing the same thing. I know the "us-versus-them, my country right or wrong" frothing at the mouth lunatics that you're referring to, who have never had a critical thought in their life. I can't imagine a more inappropriate comparison than to lump these people together with the likes of JBryan, Jolly, Larry, TomK, gryphon, or any other conservative poster on this forum.

You're correct, there are parochial minds in both conservative and liberal camps, as well as in between the two. But as your own words show, that wasn't your point. While your follow-up to me was measured and polite, I'll tell you with equal respect and politeness that your explanation doesn't square with the obvious condescension and prejudice found in your original post.

There are many on here, usually those who espouse what they consider a conservative opinion -- although I see it more as a partisan Republican viewpoint, not true conservatism -- who are very quick to label people and then assign all sorts of opinions, ideas and theories about them. They quickly and dismissively use such terms as leftist, liberal, traitor, anti-American, Bush-hater, anti-Christian, etc. They then go on to attack any idea put forward by the one they have so labeled as inherently bad.

These same posters tend to do the same thing on a variety of subjects, although the label may differ, even on the Piano Forum.

I have tried to understand where such thinking comes from and why a discussion of ideas elicit a definition of the person posing the ideas into a separate group from the one reacting; so different as to make it appear there are no shared common values. Why are not ideas taken for what they are and discussed on the level in which they are presented? Why this need to place people into opposing camps, opposite teams, if you will?

I have reached the conclusion that many people simply see things in more partisan terms -- see things as you are either for us or against us, you are either right or wrong, you are either good or evil. And most often, these definitions are placed in the Coffee Room in partisian political terms on here -- Republicans versus Democrats. How often has we heard someone who has espoused a view responded to by being told they have simply stated a party's "talking points?" as if they have no mind of their own.

There are, of course, those who do not respond like this, who speak from a broader value base, not worrying if someone is in one camp or another, on one team or another, but who discuss and debate ideas -- finding common ground with someone on some ideas and differing with them on others.

This analysis of the two basic types of posters here is the basis for what I said. I do not see it as condescending at all because I believe we need both types of people in a democracy. At the same time, I think it is almost impossible to carry on a discussion between the two groups -- one always defining everyone else in terms of what team they are on and arguing on that premise the other not seeing the "team thing" at all and arguing on that basis.

Now, no doubt, there are those who will see this further explanation as just more "crap." So be it. It is, though, why I think the dynamics in this (and other) forums break down and it is so hard to have a profitable discussion.

_________________________
WMD = W[/b]ords of M[/b]ass D[/b]istortion----------------------Seek those who seek the truth.Avoid those who have found it.

I agree that putting a label on somebody is useless and prevents discussion.

It is only the value of an idea that matters and IMHO the way it contributes to empowering all readers to think, feel and act in a more useful way.

As far as I am concerned, I do not react to your posts with a label (actually, liberals in France means those who believe in a free market, therefore those who are on the conservative side in the USA).

When you interact, like you do with Dwain Lee,I appreciate what you say, I appreciate what Dwain Lee says. We all know that all the matters we are discussing are complex which means that both sides, in a way, are right.So the discussion is rich.

What I do not like is when you write in a stereotyped and critical way. This forum is at its best either when it is playful or when it is thoughtful.

Your explanation is crap. Unless you would care to be specific about which people are the "thinkers from broad principles" and those who are the "mindless reactionaries" then you are casting all who oppose your point of view as the latter while putting on the facade of considering some may be the former. I believe no one who disagrees with you will actually be considered by you to be among the former. Why do you even bring this matter up at all if you are not attempting to invalidate the views of those like myself.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Lazy Pianist:This analysis of the two basic types of posters here is the basis for what I said. I do not see it as condescending at all because I believe we need both types of people in a democracy. At the same time, I think it is almost impossible to carry on a discussion between the two groups -- one always defining everyone else in terms of what team they are on and arguing on that premise the other not seeing the "team thing" at all and arguing on that basis.

hmmmm. I admit, I'm confused. . .You state, in so many words, that you are "above" those that fit into "two basic types of posters," with a much more global view.

I submit that by your classifying others into two groups, you are in effect exactly the type of person you are condemning, and fit quite perfectly into the extreme element of one of the groups (go ahead, guess which one, c'mon you can do it!!). I see no analysis of a position, based on anything other than pure subjectivity, and a simplistic invalid premise that "there are two types" of anyone, and that we need "two types" in a democracy. Look around, Jack, the people around you are not as simple as you would hope.

It would seem you have convinced yourself that you are considerably more intelligent than you actually are, and that your inability to be flexible has lead you into some sort of superiority complex.

At least the rest of us are only suffering from having to pick which one of the two groups we should sign up with. For you, it must be difficult to even deal with us narrow-minded, simplistic dumb folks, capable of only one of two perspectives. Of course, you look down on us while blaming "Mr. Bush" for absolutely everything every chance you get, even when not relevant to a particular thread.

Your explanation is crap. Unless you would care to be specific about which people are the "thinkers from broad principles" and those who are the "mindless reactionaries" then you are casting all who oppose your point of view as the latter while putting on the facade of considering some may be the former. I believe no one who disagrees with you will actually be considered by you to be among the former. Why do you even bring this matter up at all if you are not attempting to invalidate the views of those like myself.[/b]

JBryan

You seem to think I am criticizing people for being partisan. I am not. Indeed, I have made a point in my explanations of this to specifically state I am not.

I would submit that we would never have campaigns or volunteer campaign workers if we did not have people who saw things in partisan terms. They clearly have a very important role in any society. All I am saying is that it is not easy and often not possible for those who see things in a partisan fashion and for those who see things from a broader perspective to have a calm discussion simply exchanging ideas. The two minds think very differently.

Keep in mind where this thread was when I first stated my hypotheses. Shantinik had posted a link showing how wrong Mr. Bush's claim was that we had to go to to war because it was a certainty Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Benedict had eacted with levity and you had focused not on Shantinik's topic, but took him on over the term "conservative."

Shantinik then protested loudly that the issue of Mr. Bush using false information to rally the country was not something to be joked about nor was it a partisan issue but was a very important issue and had to be taken seriously.

It was at this point I commented on why I thought some, like Shantinik and me, see such issues as important and others see it as an issue of whose side someone is on.

Just to be clear, let me say it again. I am NOT saying it is better to be partisan or better to see things from a broader perspective. Each will react as their mind works and the way in which they perceive what is most important. I am simply trying to understand why discussion on this (and other) forums is so difficult.

Perhaps my hypotheses of the dynamics of such forums is wrong. But it makes sense to me based on how I see things here.

Finally, rvaga, clearly I am differentiating between two extremes. Many, if not most, will fall someplace in between and even those who fall more at the extremes will at times react out of character.

_________________________
WMD = W[/b]ords of M[/b]ass D[/b]istortion----------------------Seek those who seek the truth.Avoid those who have found it.

Originally posted by rvaga:Of course, you look down on us while blaming "Mr. Bush" for absolutely everything every chance you get, even when not relevant to a particular thread.[/b]

Exactly. And this from a person who claims to be nonpartisan. I would submit that I am far less partisan than LP. At least I can honestly point to disagreements I have with some of the policies of President Bush. I am not even in total agreement with some of his policies with regard to Iraq and the war on terrorism. Overall, however, I think we are headed in the right direction for a more secure nation and the rest of the world. I arrive at that conclusion based on a "broader view" of policy. Not a view that insists that monkeying around with Saddam Hussein using the same approach that hasn't worked in 12 years will actually bear some fruit.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

I think no better example of what I am saying exists than this thread.

I am pointing out patterns of the way people react and how it affects people's ability to have a meaningful discussion and recognize what others see as important. You keep seeing it as an attack and bringing the discussion back to focus on a rivalry and disagreement between us, wanting to make one of us right and the other wrong.

We are talking past each other here. We're not even on the same subject.

_________________________
WMD = W[/b]ords of M[/b]ass D[/b]istortion----------------------Seek those who seek the truth.Avoid those who have found it.

Lazy Pianist:You seem to think I am criticizing people for being partisan. I am not. Indeed, I have made a point in my explanations of this to specifically state I am not.

You would not criticize people for being partisan, yet somehow - - you don't think you are???

You are one of the most partisan people on this forum!

I don't think anyone else comes even close to your anti-"Mr." Bush mantra, your desires for global consensus, your love of that huge bureaucracy of vested interests called the U.N.

If Bush walked on water, you'd accuse him of leaving footprints and making waves. . .

The President, conservative Democrats, anything named Republican, use of common sense (instead of leftist ideology), etc., are all on the one side that you incessantly condemn. But, you are not on "the other side," you are a "global thinker."

aaaaarrrrrgghhhh!

(is there a little icon of George Washington holding a gun to his head?)

I think no better example of what I am saying exists than this thread.

I am pointing out patterns of the way people react and how it affects people's ability to have a meaningful discussion and recognize what others see as important. You keep seeing it as an attack and bringing the discussion back to focus on a rivalry and disagreement between us, wanting to make one of us right and the other wrong.

We are talking past each other here. We're not even on the same subject.[/b]

More crap. Your original post to this thread is anything but what you so glibly carry on about above. You know, it is not your point of view that I find offensive. I can deal with that on an intellectual level. It is your incessant dishonesty that gives me heartburn.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

(Hmm, that should teach me to respond to a screen that sat unrefreshed for a few hours...need to tweak this a bit...)

The barb was thrown at those frequent posters here who view themselves as conservatives - not at some vague undefinable group; not saying that there is this problem that some people have, etc. - rather, that a specific, easily identifiable group of people exhibit the trait. And, with a few rare exceptions, I disagree that these particular people exhibit the trait mentioned. Instead, I perceive, LP, that you are trying to marginalize the reasoned opinions of these people by calling them more narrow minded and partisan than you are yourself. In short, you're falling into the very same "us versus them" problem that you are decrying.

I think that your choice of words in that post showed a bit more of your actual preconceived mindset than you may have otherwise wanted to expose. I also think that your claims at this point that you're not saying, or even implying that being either "partisan" or "being more broad-minded" is better than the other, that they're both equally important and valid is a bit of an Orwellian language game - and again, one that doesn't square with the original words that you typed and are now trying to defend and redefine.

Everyone has biases in their guiding paradigms. Only fools deny it, claiming that only others are so burdened. And LP, I know you're no fool.

Originally posted by JBryan:. Not a view that insists that monkeying around with Saddam Hussein using the same approach that hasn't worked in 12 years will actually bear some fruit.[/b]

Sadly, and I say this as someone who DID NOT SUPPORT the policy, the evidence is becoming pretty clear that it actually DID bear some fruit. If we are to believe U.S. military intelligence now, an awful lot of it.

Originally posted by shantinik:P.S. This is a position (that the process of U.N. inspectors, coupled with sanctions, worked) that the Administration may be slowly coming around to....(I'm still rooting for the stupidity hypothesis, as hard as I find it to stomache. :rolleyes: )[/b]

I am beginning come to the same conclusion. As the saying goes,only fools rush in....

_________________________"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Rumsfeld told the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations think-tank he did not know why Iraq had not used chemical weapons against the invaders as Washington had predicted it would.

He said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq by surprise, but added: "It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."

Rumsfeld told his audience of foreign policy analysts, diplomats and business leaders that he suspected "we'll find out a lot more information as we go along and keep interrogating people."

Rumsfeld said Iraq was as large as California and search teams had only been working there seven weeks. He said there were hundreds of suspected sites to investigate.

"It will take time," said Rumsfeld.

On May 13, Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, also raised the possibility that Iraq had destroyed its weapons stocks.

"I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden," Petraeus said. [/b]

No where do I see any indication that UN weapons inspections are thought to have worked. If these weapons were destroyed at all (and we still don't know) they were most likely destroyed just prior to the invasion. In other words, it was the pressure of imminent invasion and not inspection teams that precipitated their destruction. Otherwise, if Saddam Hussein had destroyed them years ago why did he just not come clean and prove it.

Bottom line, however, is that we don't know what happened to these weapons and this article says exactly that.

This is something I find interesting:

Rumsfeld said U.S. intelligence agents had confirmed that two trailers found in northern Iraq were mobile biological weapons laboratories. No actual biological weapons were found on either trailer, U.S. officials have said. [/b]

It would seem that they have found evidence of a weapons program even if they have not, as yet, found the weapons.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

I can't say that I am entirely satisfied with the performance of our intelligence agencies either although I understand that there is considerable probability of error in whatever they can devine from their sources. Still, I have to agree that they need to do a lot better. Maybe they should be allowed to associate with people a bit more shady than a scoutmaster or sunday school teacher going forward. It would seem that the better intelligence could be had from those who have, shall we say, more checkered pasts.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.